An average of 55 percent of those surveyed for London-based think tank, Chatham House, agreed that immigration from Muslim-majority countries should be halted.

The poll released Tuesday comes after a bruising 18 months that have seen a string of terrorist massacres linked to radical Islam as well as record-setting levels of migration that have created social tensions across the continent.

Europe has received a more up close and personal dose of it than we have. Poland is the highest of all, despite having very little Islamic immigration. But Poland has fought off Muslim invasions three times in the past. Knowledge of that is part of the culture.

Europe has received a more up close and personal dose of it than we have. Poland is the highest of all, despite having very little Islamic immigration. But Poland has fought off Muslim invasions three times in the past. Knowledge of that is part of the culture.

Poland-Lithuania was also host to probably the longest established Islamic minority community in Europe (prior to its annexation by Russia at the end of the 18th century). The Polish Tartars were a well-treated and successful minority.

Poland’s present day ethnic homogeneity - the most ethnically homogenous state in Europe - is an accident of history caused by “cleansing” and border changes largely at the hands of aggressive imperial powers. It was once the most multi-ethnic country in Europe (but then all that Russian Empire, Nazi and Soviet business set in).

A majority of Brits do not support the ban, according to two distinct and recent polls (by YouGov and Sky News respectively):

Half (50%) of Britons believe the migrant ban signed by President Trump is a bad idea, whilst 29% think it is a good one. A further 20% don’t know.

The data shows that should Theresa May adopt a similar ban in the UK, the reaction among British voters would be broadly similar. Almost half (49%) would be appalled or disappointed compared to just over a quarter (27%) who would be delighted or pleased.**

**When told that Mr Trump had banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, 34% said they would back a similar policy in the UK, while 49% would oppose such a policy…

Meanwhile, half of Britons support cancelling President Trump’s proposed state visit after a petition to do so garnered more than a million signatures.

Some 49% support such a move, while 38% oppose withdrawing their invitation to Mr Trump.

Older voters are more sympathetic to the US President and his policies than younger people, though most in every group support cancelling Mr Trump’s state visit.

Those aged 55 or over were effectively evenly split between support (40%) and opposition (42%) to a Trump-style travel ban, while the vast majority of 18-34s would oppose such a policy (71% to 11% support).**

Nor does our government, not even Amber Rudd or Boris Johnson.

So please count the UK out. (BTW the variance in those polls also highlights the volatility of polls - I think we’ve learned from Brexit and Trump to be wary of accepting them).

I would also say that some of these polls are being skewed by the over-35s. Older voters are more likely, on average, to be politically engaged enough to participate in surveys and certainly those 50-and-over tend to favour more restrictive policies.

It seems the ‘neither’ option is unusually high in the Chatham House data. I don’t remember many issues getting such high numbers for that option or those like it such as ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Won’t say.’ Most polls show no more than 10% would choose such options for other issues. I wouldn’t surprised if a significant portion of people choosing those options were simply unwilling to say they do want restrictions or a ban.

Peter Hitchens assessment and solution to xenophobia is right and few in the world of political commentary and politics (in the West) want to admit to it:

[If] the ‘west’ really wishes to limit the influence of Islam over its societies, it needs to rediscover the Christian faith in a big way. And that crude, ignorant attacks on Muslims themselves naturally make any intelligent open-minded person come to their defence when he can, whatever he thinks of their faith.
And as long as the ‘west’ doesn’t rediscover Christianity, it flails dangerously about, mistaking strength and wealth for virtue. It puts its faith in reeking tube and iron shard, in bigger weapons, and in ‘tougher’ ‘securidee’ (which bears the same relation to true security as does ‘charidee’ to true charity), in consumer goods and in its own luxurious hedonism. This will not work. As I’ve said before, when George W. Bush used to say that Muslim militants ‘hate our way of life’, I could not forebear to chime in ‘But I also hate our way of life!’.
For I do. The ‘West’ only exists as a coherent part of the world because of the Christian morals, and the extremely high levels of trust and lawfulness based upon them, which allowed Europe and the Anglosphere to develop as they have. Islam has virtues (they have much, for instance, to teach us about hospitality and the care of the old). But Islamic societies have simply not managed to achieve levels of trust and law comparable to those in Christian lands. This could explain why Islam (if you discount oil) has not achieved any great economic success, why education, publishing, freedom of speech and thought do not greatly flourish under its influence - and I am sceptical of claims of Islamic paradises in the distant past.

Poland-Lithuania was also host to probably the longest established Islamic minority community in Europe (prior to its annexation by Russia at the end of the 18th century). The Polish Tartars were a well-treated and successful minority.

Poland’s present day ethnic homogeneity - the most ethnically homogenous state in Europe - is an accident of history caused by “cleansing” and border changes largely at the hands of aggressive imperial powers. It was once the most multi-ethnic country in Europe (but then all that Russian Empire, Nazi and Soviet business set in).

A majority of Brits do not support the ban, according to two distinct and recent polls (by YouGov and Sky News respectively):

It isn’t as if the Poles had much choice in the matter of the prosperity and treatment of the Tatars in what was once part of Poland but is now part of Ukraine and Russia.

But from what I have read, it’s true that Poland is the most ethnically homogenous state in Europe; to some degree thanks to Stalin who moved Poland westward, giving part of it to Ukraine and giving part of what was then Germany to Poland, pushing the Germans out.
But some parts of what was formerly Germany had a lot of ethnic Poles in it, like Silesia. However, from what I understand, Silesian Poles do have a sort of “Germanness” to their accents.

So please count the UK out. (BTW the variance in those polls also highlights the volatility of polls - I think we’ve learned from Brexit and Trump to be wary of accepting them).

I would also say that some of these polls are being skewed by the over-35s. Older voters are more likely, on average, to be politically engaged enough to participate in surveys and certainly those 50-and-over tend to favour more restrictive policies.

It seems the ‘neither’ option is unusually high in the Chatham House data. I don’t remember many issues getting such high numbers for that option or those like it such as ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Won’t say.’ Most polls show no more than 10% would choose such options for other issues. I wouldn’t surprised if a significant portion of people choosing those options were simply unwilling to say they do want restrictions or a ban.

Peter Hitchens assessment and solution to xenophobia is right and few in the world of political commentary and politics (in the West) want to admit to it:

You quoted this from Hitchens. Not that I particularly care for Hitchens, but the following has a lot of truth to it:

"[If] the ‘west’ really wishes to limit the influence of Islam over its societies, it needs to rediscover the Christian faith in a big way. And that crude, ignorant attacks on Muslims themselves naturally make any intelligent open-minded person come to their defence when he can, whatever he thinks of their faith.
And as long as the ‘west’ doesn’t rediscover Christianity, it flails dangerously about, mistaking strength and wealth for virtue. It puts its faith in reeking tube and iron shard, in bigger weapons, and in ‘tougher’ ‘securidee’ (which bears the same relation to true security as does ‘charidee’ to true charity), in consumer goods and in its own luxurious hedonism. This will not work. As I’ve said before, when George W. Bush used to say that Muslim militants ‘hate our way of life’, I could not forebear to chime in ‘But I also hate our way of life!’.
For I do. The ‘West’ only exists as a coherent part of the world because of the Christian morals, and the extremely high levels of trust and lawfulness based upon them, which allowed Europe and the Anglosphere to develop as they have. Islam has virtues (they have much, for instance, to teach us about hospitality and the care of the old). But Islamic societies have simply not managed to achieve levels of trust and law comparable to those in Christian lands. This could explain why Islam (if you discount oil) has not achieved any great economic success, why education, publishing, freedom of speech and thought do not greatly flourish under its influence - and I am sceptical of claims of Islamic paradises in the distant past. "

I would dissent with one statement, at least in part; the last part pertaining to the claim of “Islamic paradises” in the distant past. It has to be remembered that initially, “Islamic civilization” was an Arab Islamic overlay on prior, more advanced, civilizations; the Persian and the Greek, neither of which accepted Islam other than as a conqueror for a long time.